US v. Jasper Buck
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00029-GLR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4150]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
September 20, 2016
October 13, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sean R. Delaney,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
imprisonment after pleading guilty to mail fraud.
reversible error, we affirm.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
We “first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
. . .
. . .
significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Buck argues that the district court procedurally erred by
regarding his age and health, and the need to avoid unwarranted
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Our review of
the record reveals that the district court carefully considered
placing greater weight on other sentencing factors.
claims that the district court abused its discretion by imposing
Pg: 3 of 3
a 120-month sentence, which represented an upward variance from
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that the
district court did not act unreasonably in deciding to impose a
variant sentence or determining the extent of the variance.
United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?